On The Fifth Day of Xmas, My True Love Gave to Me... 5 Gold Rings

Gold rings? Perhaps platinum rings embedded with priceless diamonds would be a more appropriate analogy when talking about the Olympics.

Picture Credit 

Not that I am against the Olympic games - I think that they are a great opportunity for the country, but for once I must (with gritted teeth) agree with the Daily Mail who wrote earlier this month about the rising costs of the games.

Last week, the Games were going to need 10,000 guards. This week, the figure has been revised to 23,000. Once again, never mind. Let’s throw money at the problem. We are going to spend an extra £271 million to resolve the matter. That’s £21,000 per extra guard. Not bad for a fortnight’s work. That’s more than some soldiers in  Helmand get in a year

I admit to nodding along as Robert Hardman pointed out the excesses of the games. £80 million for the opening and closing ceremonies - an obscene amount of money that all the goodwill and positive marketing for UK cannot justify.

Part of the UK's winning bid was the promise that the British public would be inspired to do more sport, and that particularly the youth of Britain would benefit from the Olympic bid.

That seems as far fetched now as the idea that the games would cost just £2.9 billion.

The number of people playing sport three times or more a week has increased since 2007/08 by only 111,800  to 6.92m . The aim made be the previous government of encouraging a million new sports participants has been dropped. In fact, the number of people doing no exercise at all has risen to 57.8% of the population.

More worrying, is the downward trend amongst children but are we really surprised about this? With over 60% of funding for school sports being cut by the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition, is it any wonder than children and young adults are doing less sport?

While the press and politicians bemoan the obesity crisis of UK children, the incredibly popular School Sports Partnerships have seen their funding of £162 million withdrawn. (remember the £80m for the opening and closing ceremonies?)

Tessa Jowell stated earlier this month,

We welcome today’s focus on schools and the Olympics, but urge Michael Gove to rethink his decision to significantly cut funding to school sports. School Sports Partnerships were at the forefront of ensuring that the second key Olympic legacy pledge – to transform a generation of young people through sport – was met. 

“Instead, this out of touch Coalition have failed to recognise that SSPs were internationally acclaimed and were one of the reasons why between 2002 and 2010 the number of young people doing at least two or more hours of sport per week rose from 25 per cent to 90 per cent. The drop off since the Tory-led Government abolished the scheme has been extremely worrying.”

Here is an astounding statistic, from that press release:

Only 7% of children in UK are privately educated, but they make up 50% of Olympic medal winners.

We have to teach children when they are young about the importance of exercise and keeping fit. There is no point in lecturing them about this but when it comes to actually encouraging them to do sport saying, "You will have to ask your Mum and Dad if you can go to private sport lessons".

In times like these, when everyone is counting their pennies, many families just cannot afford after school clubs and lessons.  At an average of £5 a session for private lessons, the after-school swimming, gymnastics, judo or ballet lessons are falling victim of the credit crunch.

The cuts to publicly funded clubs and societies mean that there is little alternative. Public leisure centres around the country are searching for funding alternatives in the wake of the cuts to council budgets.

These cuts, like many other current "savings", are very short-sighted. The short term benefits for the economy are more than outweighed (no pun intended) by the long term consequences of a generation of unfit kids. The health costs to the children are bad enough - diabetes, heart issues, joint problems, without considering the financial costs to our already beleaguered NHS.

Unhealthy children grow into unhealthy adults. We must encourage children to lead healthy lifestyles, and give them the opportunity to take part in sports.

When we look at successful sporting nations, one thing is clear. The countries that encourage their children from an early age to take up sporting activities are always at the top of the medal tables. It is not just a moment on national pride, but a reflection of the importance that physical fitness has in the society.

For the good of our children, we must invest in their future health and fitness. Not just those children whose parents can afford private education and private sports lessons, but all children. Regardless of the wealth of their parents.

The Olympics of 2012 may well be a success for the nation, but what of the potential Olympians of 2020?




**** UPDATE *** 


Jeremy Hunt has stated that Britain will not host "Austerity Olympics". 

Jeremy Hunt believes that hosting the Games is an “incredible stroke of luck” during the global economic crisis as it will provide a “huge plus sign” for the struggling British economy. He also says demonstrators will be tolerated as long as their protests are legitimate and lawful.
 Mr Hunt says voters will never forgive the Government if it does not “make the most” of an unprecedented opportunity. “You can take two attitudes to the Olympics,” he says. “You can say: these are times of austerity and therefore we should pare them down as much as possible. Or, you can say: because these are times of austerity we need to do everything we possibly can to harness the opportunity of the Olympics.
“We’re going to be the centre of global attention and it will be the first time that we’ve had a major sporting event that’s watched live by half the world’s population. People would not forgive us if we didn’t make the absolute most of this moment.
“This is going to be an incredible expression of Britain’s culture, Britain’s history and Britain’s creativity. So, we decided that the sensible thing to do is to make sure that we finance it properly.”

It is difficult not to make use of rhyming slang. 

Yes, the Olympics are a great thing for Britain but do we really need to make them ostentatious. Everyone in the world knows we are going through tough times. It all screams of the old Scottish saying "Fur coat and nae knickers". 

We don't need to pretend we are doing great, there is no shame in saying that if we had hosted the Olympics eight years ago, that we would have put on the greatest show on earth.

At a time when people are being made homeless, when disabled children are having their services cut, when unemployment is soaring, and set to go even higher. Can we afford this? Absolutely not. 

The government is not saying what the extra £41m for the opening ceremony is being spent on exactly, only that it should be more "spectacular". 

What would you rather the government spent that £41m on? I could think of quite a few things. 

Tweet us using #austerityolympics and #frothers 

On The First Day of Christmas, My True Love Gave To Me... A Useless Labour Party

 Joe White walked into the kitchen on Christmas Eve and found his mother sitting at the kitchen table with her head in her hands.

"What's the matter, Mum?" the teenager frowned and sat down next to her.

"This," she said, passing a couple of sheets of paper to him.  It was a credit card bill.  All eight pages of it.  And the total balance was £34,000.  He whistled.

"Blimey, they've messed that up haven't they? Are you going to ring them to find out what's gone wrong?"

"No Joe," Mrs White said slowly.  "It's not incorrect.  That is what we owe.  The interest alone this year is £1,600."

"But you only earn £26,000 don't you?"

"Yes Joe.  We have been somewhat living beyond our means, and it's time to sort it out".

The two of them sat for a while.  Joe taking it in.  His mother thinking.  Then she pulled a sheet of paper towards her and started to write.

"OK Joe.  You are a part of this family too.  Let's have some ideas.  We need to cut back our spending drastically if we are going to pay this off".

"I guess if we tighten our belts for a bit.  Stop eating out quite so much.  Use the money off coupons at the supermarket.  That should do it shouldn't it?" he asked hopefully.

"In a word no.  You see the problem is not just paying the interest off.  It's that we have accumulated another £5,000 in debt this year.  That means our income for the year isn't enough to cover our expenditure by £5,000.  Just to get to the point where we are breaking even, before we even start paying off the annual interest, we need to stop accumulating debt.  That means saving £5,000 this year alone and every year from this point on.  Or, of course, earning an extra £5,000 and using it to break even, before we start paying off the debt."

"£5,000!  Does that mean that you've been earning £26,000, but we've been spending £31,000?"

"It does."

"So what can we cut?"

"Well, I've been looking through our bank statements.  We could stop the digital TV subscription, but that'll only save us £500 for the year.  It's a good start though.  The dance classes for Gemma, and the drumming classes for you will have to stop though I'm afraid"

"WHAT! You can't do that!"  Joe jumped up.  Suddenly it was affecting him and he wasn't happy.

"But Joe, you've had those lessons for years, despite us not being able to truly afford them.  We should never have started them.  Can't you be grateful that you've had the lessons you have and recognise the seriousness of our situation?  If we don't turn it around we'll lose the house."

Joe sat back down.  He was still fuming, but he could see the frustration and fear in his mother's eyes.

"OK Mum.  Whatever it takes.  Let's sort it out"

"Thank you, love" she said.  "It's going to be a difficult road, and it'll take us at least five years to stop accumulating new debt and to start to pay off the £34,000 we already owe.  But we have to work together.  I know your father and I haven't managed it well, and I apologise."

"It's alright" said Joe (he was a very intelligent, kind boy).

"Mum?" he said

"Yes dear?"

"I wonder how common this situation is?  Just think what it would be like if a whole country was in this position."

"Don't be silly Joe"  said Mum.  "A whole country couldn't make the same kind of mistakes we have.  They have governments to manage it all properly.  Now what do you want for tea?"

"Not sure.  What have we got?"

"Not a lot.  It's Christmas though.  Shall we go to that restaurant we like?"

"Yeah. Why not?"



The numbers in this little story are directly proportional to the debt the UK finds itself in.  The total income collected by the Government in 2010-11 was £697 billion,  the UK's average salary of £26,000 represents that income.  On that basis, the UK owes £909billion pounds and so, in Joe's family, they owe £34,000.  Scared yet?


By Yummymummyreally.

Does it help to start apportioning blame to this situation in which our country finds itself?

The Tories blame Labour, Labour blames the cuts, The Green Party blame the Banks/Tories, and blame Labour for not pointing this out earlier. The IMF blames the cuts for the continuing recession, the Daily Mail blames the weather. Now all we need is someone to blame Elvis.

A third of voters still blame Labour for the economic crisis.

This interesting article in the Economist at the beginning of this year, took Miliband to task for trying to deflect the blame onto the Tories and suggest that Labour need to stop looking to the past failures:

This is badly, badly wrong. One of the iron rules of politics is that no opposition ever persuades the public to change their minds about anything. Only governments, or external events, can do that. Oppositions must recognise where the centre-ground is, occupy it to get elected, and then move it in their direction when they are in power.

Does it matter who caused the recession? It is a peculiar human trait to apportion blame, but all the mud-slinging distracts from the more important issues - how to move forward.

This is one of the things that we at Frothers are hoping to highlight.

We need a strong opposition. We need someone to stand up and say, "Right. This just isn't working. We need a new plan".

Traditionally the "opposition" to a Conservative-lead government would be the Labour Party, but they are too self-involved at the moment to get cracking.

It is being left to activists to highlight the concerns that many have about the cuts. Where are the Labour leaders? Why has no one started asking tough questions? And offering detailed alternative plans?

We refer back to our first posts on this blog where we asked about SureStart, DLA, cuts to Credit Tax, to the NHS, to Universal Child Benefit.

Come ON, Labour Party. Get fired up about this. These are the kind of issues that are perfect for a nice ranty press conference.

Stop burrowing your heads in the sand. So things were not great when you handed over to the ConDem goverment. GET OVER IT. Move on.

We don't want the Labour Party to say, "This is bad", we want them to say, "This is bad...  this is why...  this is how it will affect YOU...  this is what we would do instead..."

There is only so much the activists and bloggers can do. Not everyone reads blogs. And the ConDems are winning the press war at the moment, as can be seen by the high approval ratings of both the government and the Prime Minister.

The news of how the cuts will affect everyone in this country needs to get out there, and the Labour Party are the ones to do this.

Give us an opposition party to get behind and support.

We are ready.



MmeLindor 

How 'workfare' affects you

It will take several posts to explain the Work Programme: it's hard to believe and the goalposts keep moving. The programme was introduced as part of the New Deal back-to-work initiative several years ago, with the aim of supporting the long-term unemployed and young jobseekers into regular employment. It is still described that way..

The element of 'support' has more or less disappeared now. The new Mandatory Work Programme is not so much about work experience as forced labour. People on benefits - for whatever reason, including illness - will be told to go and work for 'providers' or lose all their benefits. While they're working, they will not be paid by the employer but by the taxpayer, in the form of benefits. From next year, these placements will last for up to two years.

Companies already using workfarers include Tesco, Poundland, Sainsbury's, Reed and A4E. These last two - employment agencies, who are also scheme administrators - do not make their regular vacancies available to workfarers, which seems to show limited commitment to workfare as a route back into regular work.

The DWP refused a Freedom Of Information request about how many long-term real jobs have resulted from workfare. Anecdotal evidence is strong that very few employers have any intention of keeping their workfarers on after placement - well, would you, if you could get an endless stream of free staff, courtesy of the taxpayer?

Not only that, but employers are paid several thousand pounds to get free staff.

Since workfarers are not actually employed by the 'provider', they aren't covered by regular employment law. If they're abused at work, are taken ill or have an accident, they won't be covered by normal procedures and can even have their benefit taken off them. (In many cases, this will also make them homeless.) They don't have normal entitlements to breaks and holidays, etc. Their travel expenses won't be paid, even though they're only getting benefits at less than minimum wage.

Even if claimants have been signed off sick by their doctor, they can still be made to go on workfare:

"If you’re getting Employment and Support Allowance and are in the work-related activity group there are rules about taking part in the Work Programme. You may have to take part from three months before the date your doctor expects you to be fit for work."

 From this directgov page.

It's hard to see how workfare's supposed to improve our economy. Jobs, which could have been available at normal market rates, are being filled by people on benefits: hence fewer jobs, and less money in circulation. When London Underground laid off security staff, they were quickly replaced by people on workfare. In New York, where workfare has been operating for years, it's not uncommon for people to be sent to their old jobs on workfare, after being made redundant.

There's a strong popular myth about the skiving 'sick benefit' (ESA) claimant, however most genuinely are sick and living close to poverty because of it. Somebody who's developed heart disease, say, or a progressive illness, can now be made to go and work in a supermarket warehouse three months before their doctor says they're well. If they can't hack it - which would seem likely under the circumstances - their benefits can be completely stopped. As a result, they're likely to become homeless. They will then  have to be accommodated, at still greater expense to taxpayers.

This is already happening to people you've met, and will be happening to many more in 2012. It could be happening to you if you're made redundant or fall ill.

Frothers will be adding more posts on this topic, and we will link to organisations that provide information. Meanwhile we're asking for first-hand accounts of workfare, whether you're a participant or have worked alongside workfarers in your real job.

Empty Homes and McMansions

How many empty homes are there near where you live? There must be a couple, since it is estimated that there are around 350,000 long term empty houses in England.

There are two million British families currently on waiting lists for a council or housing association home.

According to last night's Channel4 documentary, many of these homes were emptied by the councils to make way for new, larger housing in the previous Labour's government's Pathfinder scheme.

According to this report, "The schemes refurbished 40,000 properties and demolished 10,000, building 1,000 new homes" and cost £2bn.

Picture Credit

The project was halted last year by the Conservative/Lib Dem government half way through it's 15 year running time, as Channel 4 reported at the time. It seems slightly disingenuous to put all of the blame on the last government, when this one was the one to pull the plug.

At any rate, Pathfinder was responsible for some of the empty homes shown last night, but not all of them. And we can jiggle the figures and shift the blame as much as we want, at the end of the day it does not help those living in sub-standard housing.

The single mum living in a squalid house shows just how bad things are. She had to take a lamp into the kitchen as the ceiling light did not work The tangle of electrical wires, the damp and mouldy walls - the whole house was a massive fire hazard. For this dump, she paid £450 monthly rent.

I wrote recently about the government's new Housing Strategy, but the post got lost in my blog breakdown last month, so I am going to summarise it here.

Grant Shapps's Housing Strategy shows just how far from real life those in power are.

The basics:

• £400m investment in new development, supporting housebuilders in need of development finance including small and medium sized builders

• Mortgage indemnity scheme designed with the Home Builders Federation and Council of Mortgage Lenders to offer 95% loan to value mortgages for new build properties in England, to support 100,000 households

• Free up public sector land with "build now, pay later" deals for developers, releasing enough land to build 100,000 new homes and create up to 200,000 new jobs in the construction industry

• £400m earmarked for FirstBuy, to help 10,500 first time buyers with the help of an equity loan up to 20%

• A Custom Homes programme worth £30m to help individuals build their own homes, offering short-term project finance for independent projects

• Right-to-buy owners will be offered a discount of as much as half the value of their homes. Homes sold through right-to-buy will be matched by new homes developed for social rent

• £100m in funding to bring empty homes back into use, and a further £50m to tackle the worst concentrations of empty homes

• Consultation on an 'empty homes premium' added to council tax, payable if a home is left unattended for more than two years. Receipts from this additional tax used to bring homes back into use

Why on earth is £400m being invested in more houses, when that money could be used to renovate the ones that are sitting empty? Do we need more new builds that cost 2 - 3 times the price of an ex local authority house? Has Cameron been out to see the housing estates that are sitting unsold all over the country? Maybe it is just in the area where I am from but if you check out Rightmove at present, you will find pages of these "McMansions". Clachan View Gamekeepers View Iolaire - they are all shiny and new, often with twee "country" names, outside villages and town so that you need to drive everywhere. I would much rather spend my (imaginary) £300 on something like this.

Encouraging those who do not have a deposit saved to take out a 95% mortgage - isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place? Does Cameron know that even saving 5% deposit for a house is almost impossible for many? Take a normal 3 bed house in Dundee, where my parents live. Cost: around £100k. Deposit: £5k.

Saving a deposit of £5 might not sound like a lot, when you spend that on a weekend away, Mr Cameron but when you only earn £20k - where is that money coming from? Considering the family is likely paying about £500 a month on shabby rented accommodation.

Which brings me neatly to my next point. Private rentals. There must be much more done to stop people being ripped off by unscrupulous landlords. It is incredible that in Health and Safety concious Britain, where an office worker is not allowed to change a light bulb, private tenants are living in such dangerous conditions. There must be stronger legislation for renters, and more encouragement for landlords to offer long-term rental periods. Perhaps a tax cut if the landlord agrees to a longer lease?

The only way out of the miserable private rental sector is to buy a house (out of the question for many, particularly in London area) or local authority housing schemes. Oh, but we are going to sell those off, aren't we? We need more LA houses, not less. If we sell them all off, then that leaves more families on the private rental market.

Part of the new strategy was that the sales of the RTB houses would fund building of new houses, although I cannot see how that would work. If you sell a house worth £200k at half market price, what kind of house are you going to build with that £100k?

The main problem, in my opinion, of housing in UK is the massive gulf between earnings and house prices. If the average salary is £25k, but the average house price £241k then there is a massive problem.

According to this calculator, the monthly payment for a £241k house, at 6% over 20 years would be £1700 - over £20k a year. Even saving up the 20% deposit of £40k would be beyond many people.

A single earner on average pay can borrow £100k - fine for a house in Scotland, but not in SE England.

Unless the government do more to tackle the issues, and realise that helping people to buy their own home is not the be and end all of the matter, things are not likely to change in the near future. Not everyone has to have their own home, but the terrible situation in the private rental sector is what drives most to attempt this.

Affordable, clean and safe housing should be the priority. Not building new homes, but encouraging the owners of the empty homes to renovate and rent those homes.

Want to do more?

The charity Empty Homes is campaigning on this issue.

Read more about the Empty Homes Scandal campaign on Channel 4.

Information on how to rescue a Empty Home

Who Are The Frothers?

When the Conservatives came to power last year, the only slight consolation was that there was a feeling amongst Labour voters that the party would be swept through. Out with the old, in with the new. New personalities, new policies, new ideas, a new beginning.
Since then, the Tories have cut swathes through the heart of Britain. Slicing into the NHS, tax credits, benefits, Sure Start, DLA...
With little or no opposition from the Labour opposition. Have they gone to sleep?
Has anyone else noticed the absence of any kind of positive movement from the opposition?
I don't mean the normal, "We oppose the cuts, we oppose the ConDem policies", but constructive, hard hitting criticism.
Why do the parties on the left of the political spectrum lose the propaganda war?
It is something that I have noticed, not just in UK politics, but in other countries too. The conservative parties are great with sound bites.
Lazy benefits scroungers should be forced to work
Criminal Immigrants should be deported
No to a European Superstate
Where is the strong rebuttal of these statements? Why is the left so silent?
When the Government announce one of their crazy schemes such as the Youth Unemployment one, I want to see the leader of the opposition on TV, stating in clear and strong words what exactly is wrong with the scheme, and most importantly what Labour would do differently.
Ed Miliband stated today, on Mumsnet webchat

We have set out an alternative for now: Labour's five point plan for jobs and growth. Cut VAT, a bonus tax to help the young unemployed, bring forward investment in infrastructure, cut vat on home repairs, and provide a national insurance holiday for all small firms.

He went on to say:

Our bankers' bonus tax would be used to fund 100,000 jobs for young people and build 25,000 more affordable homes. That's a good policy - in contrast to what this government is doing in giving the banks a tax cut this year while piling on the bills for everyone else.

I want to know exactly what he means by that. How would they fund 100,000 jobs for young people - because the present plan is useless. How would they fund 25,000 more affordable homes?
Not wishy washy sound bites. Clear and concise information about his party's alternative solutions to the slash and burn ConDem nightmare.
The Labour leadership's reaction to the nationwide strike yesterday was pretty appalling. If you cannot get the Labour party behind you when protesting against Conservative / Lib Dem cuts, when can you expect support?
I am not alone in my frustration. There are blogs and activists galore at the moment, but they are swimming, aimless and leaderless. We need a strong oppositional figure to raise behind and support.
This week one of those disenchanted voters wrote on Mumsnet:

I'm not quite a frothing berserker but I am getting rather cross with our government messing with the good stuff.
Just off the top of my head:

• * Student fees
• * Public sector workers terms and conditions (otherwise known as moving the goal posts after the match has started) * Women (Report on Fawcett legal challenge result here)
• * Sure Start
• * NHS
• * Erosion of employment rights
• * Removal of EMA
• * Removal of universal child benefit
• * Unfair changes to DLA<
• * Unfair changes to ESA assessment

I am getting more and more fed up that these decisions are being made to take away some of the things we should be most proud of and that took years to be achieved.
This thread is a safe haven for some ranting as I know some of us are feeling sick and tired of it all.

Within a few days the thread had over 700 posts and a blog was being set up in which the self-proclaimed #frothers could get worked up and rant.
Ranting is only satisfying for a little while, at some point the posters felt that something more was needed.
And so a blog was born.
A blog that shall be used by various posters to share their experiences, their advice, their ideas. Where we can shout out about injustices, where we can direct those who oppose these unfair cuts how best to protest against them.
The posters used the #frothers hashtag as a nod to the "frothing beserkers" of the thread title and it kind of stuck.
Go and have a look. Join us in frothing. Use the #frothers and share on Twitter and Facebook if you like what we write.
By the way, Ed Miliband was pointed in the direction of the #frother thread

KateMiddIeton
We are the frothers Ed
you can join us here
We're not political. We've just had enough.
#frothers is our hashtag. Because we are getting organised...

Ed's reply:

I am not surprised you are angry about it. I support the campaign against what is happening. #frothers

******************* EDIT ***********************
Here is an example of what I mean.
Ed Miliband was asked on Mumsnet about Housing Benefit cuts:

lubeybaublely: Dear Mr Miliband<
I would like to know what your thoughts are on housing and the coalitions 'social cleansing' policy. Namely the capping of housing benefit to levels that force the working poor (and all poor) to move away from the jobs they have and areas where they and their children have been settled all their lives, or be poverty stricken in order to meet the shortfall between benefit and rent.
With a lack of Affordable Local Authority and Housing Association properties and also NO regulation on what private landlords charge, it puts people in an impossible, unfair and unworkable situation. What can Labour do to oppose or change this, or what would Labour do if back in government about these issues? <
Sincerely LB #frothers

Ed's answer was:

I'm in favour of reform to Housing Benefit but I think the Government is going about it in the wrong way, cutting too far and too fast with counter-productive consequences. Even before the cap is introduced, we're seeing people forced to leave their homes and go on the homeless list - and that may end up costing the taxpayer more in the long term. And yes, I agree, there should be better regulation of private sector landlords.

This was just tweeted by the Conservatives Press Twitter account:

@ToryPressHQ
#EdMiliband on #mumsnet said he OPPOSED #coalition cap on housing benefit at £400/wk & wants up to £2,000/wk kept. #Labour don't get it

So that will be the sound bite then? Misquoted, completely twisted and often repeated in pubs throughout the land.